Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Charlie-
By bringing in cases of Rabbinnic enactment to try and show support for your positions I think you are missing a basic point.
The Rabbonnon derived their authority from the Torah, the laws were passed under the authority of the Torah chifly “Lo Sosur” they were as much “religous laws” in Nature as they were “economic” laws.
DaMoshe
I get your point in a sense.
Meaning if someone is being Machmir due to superiority or the like, then yes they are not better, in fact thet would be in the realm of “Ba’lei Gaivoh”.
However someone who is genuinely Machmir due to a higher level of learning or because they wish to be more makpid on kashrus.
Well.
Yes that person is better then me.
They are on a higher level.
And that’s not my opinion. It’s explained in great detail by Mesilas Yeshorim.
My biggest problem is that whenwever some place closes down they have a sale yet the U.S.A gov shut down and not only did they not have a sale they even said we still have to pay our taxes!
MDD
I would tend to think personally that the Torah does not view a Mechallel Shabbos B’farhesya all that much differently then a rapist if not worse.
And let me be clear as to my meaning.
The biggest tragedy that can happen to many families of yirei shomayim is if they have a child go OTD.
Sam2
No one tricked the Chida and it wasn’t “not known” for 700 years as the Chida cites a tradition he heard from another senior Godol you can look it up.
I would be hesitant to say anything th Chida felt worthy of inclusion in his seforim is “ridiculous”.
As for the Radziner, I gave you a source you can look it up.
Sam2
The Rogachover maintained the Rambam only coached his words in terms of Arabic and Greek philosophy but really every idea originated from Torah, The Radziner in Sefer HaHakdamah U’Pesicha maintained it all corresponds with Sod.
For more info see page 287 of Rabbi J. Elias’s peirush on The Nineteen Letters.
Furthermore I merely quoted what is written in Shem HaGedolim from the Chida regarding the Rambam’s Moreh.
Lastly I wrote a list of reasons to show that there are multiple reasons not to go with Moreh Nevuchim.
Far from being solid it is as shaky an approach as it gets.
Again let me stress I personally am not able to take a stand ch”v on the Rambam but am merely reporting the views of Gedolei Yisroel from the era of the Rambam till our times.
It would seem that the crux of the issue is this.
There are those who realize that a murderer and rapist will receive somewhat less “love” from their parents.
Now some feel that a child becoming irreligious and no longer being shomer torah u’mitzvos is akin to becoming a murderer or rapist.
Some do not see it that way.
So Zd
You bring up a point.
You are proven wrong.
Rav Chaim ozer gave the advice that directly led to thousands of lives being saved.
Now you try and change the topic.
Point?
Do you intend to list all the satistics of European Jewry killed?
The question was whether att the time Rav Chaim Ozer zt”l called all yeshiva bochrim to Vilna he was corecct.
Facts are he was and his called led directly to thousands of lives saved as well as the re-birth of Yeshivos in Chutz La’aretz.
Yup ZD,
You are 100% correct.
And at the point that Rav Chaim Ozer zt”l called all yeshiva bochrim to Vilna it was indeed safer there and thousands were ultimately saved because of their initial trip to Vilna which gave them the time to find escape routes.
This includes the entire Mirrer Yeshiva as well as parts of Kletsk and Yeshivas Chachmei Lublin.
00646
Just to clarify my position.
I did not state a theory, in fact I think I stated that I am not qualified to explain Maseh Bereshis, in fact other posters have pointed out that we are not supposed to delve in to certain matters period.
What I did state is that the Torah tells us certain generalities, I accept the Torah as categorically true. As such Maseh Bereshis is true.
While there may some who state that Maseh bereshis is not to be taken literally, I have enumerated some of the problems with that approach above.
Furthermore I stated that while I am not qualified to give complete ansewers, a superficial reading of the Torah indicates that there was some levelevolvement of species.
What the full paremeters of this evolvement was I do not know, nor frankly do I think you or 99.9% of people alive know.
However I do understand that there may be some things found (incidently nothing that has been found yet) that may give rise to questions on my understanding of the Torah.
Truthfully, given the current methodology of logic used by scientists I do not see myself taking much Theories that they propose seriously since I have been trained in a completley different method of analysis and logic.
However things can always change.
But the bottom line is that since as I stated above I have found that it is illogical to state the Torah is false I am forced to admit that I do not know everything and there are things that I do not understand.
WIY
Great post about Masei Bereishis, though I think the shiur was probably not speaking about Ramban since the Ramban actually explains Tohu and Bohu in depth if I recall corectly.
Charliehall,
Actually those who chose to rely on the Rambam for the proper approach to understanding Masei Bereishis are standing on pretty shaky ground.
Chida was a pretty big follower of Rambam in Halacha yet in Shem HaGedolim the Chida records a tradition that Rambam had actually learnt Kabbala later in his life and was chozer from Moreh Nevuchim (the source of his approach to Chumash).
It’s easy to find this just look up Rambam in Shem HaGedolim.
Numerous Rishonim spoke out extremly vehmently against the Rambams approach including the Ramban who goes to great lengths to disprove much of it in his peirush to Chumash.
Famously Rabbeinu Yonah regretted the manner in which he opposed the Rambam’s explanations but not the content.
Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsh wrote a very sharp critique or MN in Nineteen Letters, so sharp that the Chazon Ish actually advised that it be left out of a Hebrew translation for fear people would misunderstand it.
And the Vilna Gaon stated categorically that the Rambam’s approach was based on a lack of access to Zohar, when the Zohar was revealed and proven to be accurate it was accepted that the Rambam’s approach was not correct (The Gra’s words, I of course would not have the ability to say such things) and is not our Mesorah.
In fact recently when a book was written about these matters and the Rambams position was used to justify certain views, Rav Chaim Kanievsky was asked about it. He ansewered the Gra already addressed the issue.
Lastly there are Chassidic Authorities that actually state that Moreh Nevuchim is only to be understood Al Derech haKabballah and not simply, and the Rambam purposely wrote in riddles.
So those who chose to interpet Maseh Bereishis non-literally in the manner you are referring to have are standing on some pretty shaky ground.
In summary,
1)There is a view that the Rambam’ Moreh Nevuchim was not to be taken literaslly.
2) Even if the Rambam meant it literally he retracted it later in his life.
3) Even if he did not retract it the overwhelming majority of Rishonim argued vehemently on the Rambams approach to Chumash,
4)Even if the Rambam meant it literally there is strong grounds to state that the Rhe basis of the Rambams approach was based on a lack of Exposure to Kabbolla.
The Gedolim actually do offer guidance and speak out on issues.
Unfortuantley there are many that are unwilling to listen to them.
00646
So?
Our understanding of Maseh Bereshis is based upon what is written in the Torah.
We accept the Torah as True based upon Mamad Har Sinai which took place in front of 3 million people and while many people have tried disproving our Mesirah none have succeaded.
Now the scientific understanding is based upon “indirect proofs” which is essentially what a prediction is. There are numerous questions based on it.
They include the problem of where are the Transitional fossils, the structures of certain organs and other more m athematical issues.
Why do I have to provide a theory when I have one?
Do I undestand every thing in it?
Of course not!
I am not a scientist, I have the capability of saying I do not know.
And every case of me stating I do not know does not require me to make up an ansewer and then go around with a list of wonderful things that would be if my ansewer was correct.
I actually find the post from Sam2 regarding the G-d not intending for us to understand certain things to be the best one so far on this thread.
As for the Rishonim that state certain things in Torah are Meshalim.
Yes they state them, however most of them are either written as “pshat” meaning a way to understand simply not not “pure emes” ( a distinction made by all rishonim when explaining Psukim ) and others were made without knowledge of Zohar.
The Ramban does come close to calling those approaches Kefira as do many others. The Vilna Gaon in particular is quite famous for his complete rejection of that mehlech was disproven when the zohar was accepted.
I think this is a somewhat difficult subject.
In my case I was sick, the Doctors were in their words extremely “pessimistic” of a complete recovery, if there was to be a recovery at all.
Yet Rav Shteinmann said all would be well (along with other Gedolei Yisroel).
I did merit a complete recovery and the Doctors called my case “humbling”.
Does that qualify as a Nes?
I do not know, and my emunah is not dependent on it.
the thing I do take from it is that they is HKBH and while Doctors have a Heter of Rapoh Y’Rapeh they do not have the power of predictions.
Torah Rocks
I most definitely am not coming even close to stating that the Torah supports evolution as taught in Public Schools.
1) from the time of Adam HaRishon it has been less then 6000 years. That’s a fact.
2)HKBH created the various species as was described in Parshas Bereishis there was no “common descent”.
Regarding Scientific “logic”
While this is tangential to the topic.
The differences between Talmidical Logic and Scientific Logic is one of the reasons I do not take “scientific theories” to seriously.
The method of scientific analysis basically requires one to already be partial to a particular solution when examining evidence.
Being partial to a particular result usually colors those results as well causes a great deal of evidence to be excluded since what is being searched for is not the solution to the original question, rather its whether or not the solution is correct.
In practice a great deal of medical mistakes are actually caused by this method of thinking i.e a wrong diagnosis is given and then not realized.
In Talmudical logic there are two things 1) one is required to maintain impartiality 2) if one would have a kushya in the beginning of learning a sugya and them immediately propose a hypothesis he would be “laughed at”. 3) “loose ends are only unable to “shlug up” a teretz if the overwhelming majority of a topic prove the validity of the teretz in a direct way, not just “work well” with it.
Again a perfect example is evolution.
A great deal of the “evidence” to evolution would be “inadmissible” in a Talmudic debate.
Much of the evidence simply state’s that if this Theory is true then xyz makes sense. a Talmudist would state simply “So what?” and if Theory abc that I dream up would work it could also make sense in fact all you have to say is G-d created things to look this way and you lose all proof.
It could be, can’t it?
In a Talmudic “debate” direct proof is needed to prove things, and direct proof to the Theory of Evolution is what is lacking.
00646
I did not, nor do I come even close to claiming to have a “theory”.
I generally try to follow Talmudical rules of logic which are very different then Scientific one.
In Science the Hypothesis is formed first.
In Talmud one has questions and then is supposed to seek out the ansewer’s but without first having formed a Hypothesis, after one has already gathered the “evidence” then one figures out how that “evidence” can shed light on the previous questions.
As such being that I do not come even close to claiming to have a thorough knowledge of Maseh Bereshis it would be extremely stupid for me to begin spouting “theories” as to how it worked.
With that said.
a) All I stated was that Torah indicates a) there was a change in species appearance 2) there were (according to most) species that went extinct ex. tachash, snake’s before the cheit and after were radically different 3)The notion of a species going extinct is perfectly in line with Jewish thought and the understanding of creation of animals, i.e if they no longer serve a purpose they disappear.
b) The notion of “common descent” the way I understand things does prove to be at variance with the Torah which clearly states that HKBH created the various species.
Regarding that I stated that “overwhelming” evidence of common descent that’s used is the commonality of genetics (not just bodily structure) I stated quite clearly that the similarity of genetics is to be expected based on the limited understanding I have in these matters in which it’s clearly stated that the “guf” of a person is the same as that of an animal.
Look,
There is separate “threads’ within the Theory of Evolution.
Some of what evolutionists posit is quite well documented.
Most of that stuff not only does not contradict Torah, rather in a way confirms it.
As I posted before there are many indications from the Torah that species have changed.
There was a change from before the Mabul to after. (B’Nei Melachim)
In addition while Adam HaRishon was a “giant” according to Midrash he was able to interact with animals meaning they also must have been of a different sixe then what we have today.
Furthermore a species going extinct according to basic understandings of Derech Hashem makes sense, if there is no longer a purpose for them they disappeared.
Now what does prove issues would be common descent.
But the evidence for common descent is basically extremely similar genetics. Which I have posted previously does not prove common descent in the slightest.
Rather common genetics makes perfect sense with the Jewish concept of Guf and Neshomah.
As for transitional fossil.
I did not refer to “transitional” stages .
I referred to fossils of animals “in flux” in the process of transition.
They should be there, Darwin stated they would be found.
They haven’t.
Now should fossils reveal animals that are extinct or various types that seem to have been different at some point in time.
I personally would be shocked if they didn’t.
a) The Torah makes clear that giants existed.
2) Prior to the flood there were the Benei Melachim.
3) There was the tachash (whatever it was)
5) Snakes changed after creation.
6) If Humans were the size the Torah says they were then animals could not have been the size they are today.
So I just listed 6 indicators that a fossils “record” would show animals we don’t have and I would assume that as humans “shrunk’ animals might have shrunk with them.
Now I could be wrong. I am not a mekubal and am not sufficiently versed in certain matters to be able to say things for certain.
The sole point remains that the fossil record “proves” common descent in ways that don’t exist if one knows Torah.
00646
I don’t think you understand what I was saing.
What the Secular version of “Creationism” is or “Intelligent Design” does not in the least interest me.
Maseh Bereshis is hard, it’s really hard. And what is actually spoken about in Torah sources has very little to do with secular understandings.
There is a snippet of Shar HaKedusha from Rav Chaim Vital that is publishesd as an introduction to Even Shelaima since the Motzi L’or felt it would be impossible to understand Even Shelaima without it.
Proving genetic similarities between the various “guffim” “bodies” of creatures would simply make the small excerpt of Rav Chaim Vital easier to understand.
And that’s just one example.
But for the evolutionist it proves evolution and to the “creationist” it’s a really big problem.
I get it.
However if you learn torah it’s not, and doesn’t come even close to proving evolution.
Wolf,
Yes flooding is something most people would be familiar with.
That one man is told to build a boat and save his family along with all the animals on board?
Nope, Not so common.
The Flood stories all seem to have certain eerie similarities.
Secular Frummy
have you studied Eygptology?
I admit I actually have a pretty good interest in the area and am pretty familiar with aspects of it and still haven’t even attempted top go back that far.
Because to state that the records of any Eygptian Dynasty that archeologists would have surmised existed at the time are from the most “reliable” is a stretch and that’s saying it nicely.
oo646
I find it curious as to you would state with such certainty that a number of “transitional” fossils have been found?
Could you please define what you mean.
I have seen arguments made as to why they are not needed (though when the hope of finding them still existed there was no such argument). One of the main arguments has been alluded to.
However I have not seen any claim that these “transitional fossils exist.
As for “pre Darwin ideas” of Creation as well as what special creation would predict.
I really don’t know why that would be relevant to the Torah view on creation since it has little to do with it.
A perfect example would actually be genetics since a cursory knowledge of Koheles and it’s meforshiom or Ramchal would actually leave one with the impression that it is quite probable that human DNA i.e the guf bears strong similarities to animal DNA.
Secular Frummy
Read my post above yours.
Wolf
Would you prefer the term quite common?
Various Flood stories are found throughout ancient civilizations and they generally have strong parallels to the “Genesis Flood. In that one man and his family are saved along with the animals they take with them.
I find it pretty curious as to why would attempt to dispute this since Bible Critics usually take a different tack.
(Edited for clarity)
000646
Again finding isolated fossils of various species, some of which appear to be extinct, which can all be explained by stating that a came from b which came from c which came from d proves absolutely nothing.
It merely says that if you do not believe in G-d and have no understanding of Maseh Bereshis and the underlying chochmah of Guf and Neshomah, and in addition to that disbelieve any notion of a “biblical Flood” even though virtually every single civilization has some sort of record of a Great Flood that closely parallels the Torah’s account, you are going to run into major problems.
And yes a lot of these problems can be explained away by the Theory of Evolution.
Now that Theory itself can be crazy, can have no direct proof (no there aren’t fossils of animals in transition meaning with wings that are partially legs etc..) but the Theory is the only way for an atheist to explain the World.
But does it qualify as proof?
One of the leading books written to counter Creationism attempts to “demonstrate” the absurdity of stating apes and humans do not share common ancestry by demonstrating how similar various parts the DNA are.
Is that proof?
Take out any Hashkafa Sefer and read how mans guf is the same as an Animal’s in fact we just heard Koheles on Succos where the point is made again and again “Man has nothing over animals”
The difference is the neshomah, not the guf.
So the bodies of humans are really similar to those of monkeys.
So what?
Basically if you take the tack of the early “Historical School of Judaism” the school that gave birth to the Conservative movement, by divorcing the “Spirit” of Judaism from the “laws” of Judaism, rendering a religion that was “lifeless with no theology what so ever. Well then thing get confusing.
(BTW, scientists saying something means nothing the question is whether or not the evidence bears them out)
000646
Again for finding isolated fossils that can be explained by stating that looking a came from b which came from c which came from d proves absolutely nothing.
It merely says that if you do no believe in G-d and have no understanding of Maseh Bereshis and the underlying chochmah of Guf and Neshomah you are going to run into major problems that can be explained away by the Theory of Evolution.
Now that Theory itself can be crazy, have no direct proof (no there aren’t fossils of animals in transition) but the Theory is the only way for an atheist to explain the World.
But does it qualify as proof?
One of the leading books written to counter Creationism demonstrates the absurdity of stating apes and humans do not share common ancestry by demonstrating how similar various parts the DNA are.
Is that proof?
Take out any Hashkafa Sefer and read how mans guf is the same as an Animal’s in fact we just heard Koheles on Succos where the point is made again and again “Man has nothing over animals”
The difference is the neshomah not the guf.
So basically if you don’t know the Theological backbone of Judaism it’s confusing, if you do it’s not.
(BTW, scientists saying something means nothing the question is whether or not the evidence bears them out)
000646
a) I don’t think it’s possible to throw around “quotes” proving that scientists themselves do not believe in evolution. Those that believe in it believe in it those that don’t (and there are quite a few that do not (Gish, for example is a PhD as are most of the foremost voices arguing against evolution).
The purpose of the “quotes” are to instead show that even those that are avowed “evolutionists” themselves are forced at times to admit to the “howling” problems to a Theory that has never been proven.
peppersalt.
If I understand you correctly basically you are referring to two things.
1) There is a definite commonality amongst skeletal structures, it is what caused Darwin to come up with his Theory in the first place. For the atheist it points to common descent as the way to explain this. For the believer in G-d creating the world it ‘s “duh we always knew that”.
2) Darwin explains the method of “common descent based on what is crudely described as survival of the fittest” there are many problems with that theory. Not the least of which are the complete lack of a fossil record meaning a record of transitional species such as thousand of giraffes with short necks followed by thousands of giraffes in the next strata with longer neck etc….
I have been to the Museum of Natural History btw and I have read literature on the subject from both pro and con approaches.
The reason actually is because the first thing I ever read on Evolution was from Rav Avigdor Miller and I simply could not believe that Evolution could really be that ridiculous.
So I actually went and read the sources and literature and yes I what I found is that it is really completely utterly ridiculous.
Again lets provide some real quotes.
Sir Francis Hoyle ( I’ve quoted him before and he is certainly no believer in Maseh Bereshis to put it mildly)states “it is not hard to find writings in which the myth is stated that the Darwinian theory of evolution is well proven by the fossil record. But one finds the higher the technical quality of the writings the weaker are the claims that are made (page 184 in Evolution from Space.
Why the weak claims?
Lets quote from the Obvious Proof,
“there should be fossils corresponding to each rung in evolutions ladder. Concerning any species alive today, it should be possible to find fossil records not only of distant ancestors but also of the many transitional forms in between.
When Darwin was alive he admitted that the fossil record did not
yet provide evidence that evolution had actually taken place etc…
Darwin was confident, however that if paleontologists would dig in the right places the missing links would turn up.
however after a century of digging scientists have not uncovered the fossils to support Darwin’s claim.
To quote from Is Evolution Proved?
“statistically the absence of any traces of transitional forms proves there never were any”. (page 61)
peppersalt
As I stated earlier.
Yes there are fossil’s on an individual
basis.
And yes evolution does posit one came from another.
(no they don’t “predict” you can’t predict what you have).
However facts are there is no fossil record, the transitional species don’t exist.
Them’s the facts.
peppersalt,
First off regarding the Chinuch, I didn’t say you’re wrong, all I said was I did not know it. The Ramchal in Derech Hashem indicates that is not the case, I learnt Derech Hashem, I did not learn Chinuch.
Regarding fossils.
Let me explain really clearly.
Lets take the example of Horses.
Let’s say for arguments sake that evolutionists posit that Horses had ten stages of development until they evolved to the form of Horses we have now.
A fossil record would be if the dug in one area and found a chain of ten types of Horses one after the other the “oldest” fossil being at the lowest strata the next species being at the above strata and so on.
That has never been found and the inability to find it at all is quite troubling a fact that BTW is admitted to by many honest committed evolutionists. If Evolution took place and this process was gone through by all the different species we have then somewhere there should be a record there isn’t.
What there is plenty of scattered fossils all over the world and conjecture about how one type came from another.
But thats it.
Again if you want to debate the stuff you should first read the literature on it.
The lack of a fossil record is pretty much acknowledged across the board.
peppersalt
I am unaware of the Chinuch you refer to. I am aware of Derech Hashem where the Ramchal indicates quite clearly that if any given species will never go extinct as long as there is a purpose for it in the world.
The way I always understood it was that the Ramchal is basically stating that if a particular species purpose would no longer exist it would then cease to exist.
As for “Fossil Record”
I mean a clear discovery of linked species in successive strata that would show that evolution took place.
that is the only way to “prove” evolution.
The lack of such evidence is not just a “lack of proof, it is also quite troubling.
If the evolution of species took please according to the Evolutionary Theory then some archeological evidence of successive animals (or humans) should have been found somewhere amongst the various strata.
Why is it that after well over 100 years of worldwide searching the fossil record of a single species still has not been found?
As for Intelligent Design.
I do not believe in Intelligent design ch”v.
What I do believe in firmly is Maseh Bereishsis.
The world was created by One G-d.
Furthermore I firmly believe that what separates man from animal is out “neshomah” (or one of them) not our bodies which themselves are quite similar.
An yes I am aware that from Darwin on Galapagos Island till today, evolutionists are quite concerned with the biological similarities between the various species that exist.
To the point that billions have been spent researching these similarities and books after books written documenting them.
All I can say is that if you would have asked any Talmid Chochom with a thorough knowledge of the basic Seder Habriah they would have told you that probably the case, that how god created them.
Ravfranklin
I am curious if you have ever read through the literature of evolutionists.
If you would have (or perhaps you did but failed to understand it) you w3ould have seen the obvious.
Yes there are individual fossils of species that do not exist at this time,
However there is no fossil record at all.
Those are the facts, plain and simple.
Sam2
Evolution is no misnomer there are types of evolution we agree with since they are proven facts that are actually demonstrable in lab settings. That is what is under discussion.
And I did not mean to say there is no “absolute proof” I meant to say there is no direct proof.
And guess what there is none.
Sam2,
Which part of what I said is inaccurate?
Seems to me what you quoted from Wikipedia is exactly what I said.
And the “theory” of Evolution (the form we are discussing) is the perfect example.
The Theory of Evolution, if true, would explain many things.
There is no denying that.
And yes it was formed to explain several questions, and yes the things it comes to explain are facts.
There are numerous skeletal structures that are eerily similarly.
However there is no proof to Evolution at all, while there are numerous very specific questions such as why after over 100 years of searching for a fossil record there remains none.
And yes the questions it comes to answer do not exist if one believes God created the World.
So as there is no direct proof towards Evolution it remains a “theory”.
Charliehall,
I don’t think that anyone is disputing the need to believe in “Scientific facts” they are as you said, simple facts.
The question is about Theories which may be promoted as “facts” yet aren’t.
Saying scientific “age counting” is fact based is simply ignorant, as one poster noted, there are different methods all of which give different results so it’s hard to take it as fact based.
The question remains why believe in Science.
Charliehall,
I don’t think that anyone is disputing the need to believe in “Scientific facts” they are as you said, simple facts.
The question is about Theories which may be promoted as “facts” yet aren’t.
Saying scientific “age counting” is fact based is simply ignorant, as one poster noted, there are different methods all of which give different results so it’s hard to take it as fact based.
The question remains why believe in Science.
Leyzer.
I was told this by Rav Shmuel Berenbaum zt”l (who lost virtually his entire family to the Nazi’s).
Part of what he said was “If you learn CHumash you you know we have a Toachachoh, do you have any idea what washappening in Europe?”.
Lakewood001
I don’t know what people would prefer to think, but I do know that G-d did give us the Torah and told us many times what would happen if we did’nt keep it.
Lakewood 001
I have stated stated pretty clearly.
You seem to have never learnt Melachim and you do not know it.
As such you are making up things that it does not say at all.
You denied it.
I asked you to please give a word for word quatation of the exact verse you are referring to.
Several weeks later you still have’nt.
As for the Taylor Prism about Sancheriv.
You really should read more then straight Finkelstien especially since Dever (an agnostic basically demolished him in public)
The prism is blank as to what occured to Chizkiyahu.
Bible Critics conjecture that that is what happened.
It’s kine of foolish to make up a verse in Melachim that anyone in Melachim can see does not exist.
And even more foolish to make up a whole part of an acknowledeged archeological find that doesn’t exist.
BTW the question about trees from the Mabul is pretty stupid since the Torah itself indicates that there were trees that survived the Mabul (go back and read how Noach came out of the Teva).
Rationalfrummie.
I’ve tried ansewering lakewood001’s questions.
The last debate on these pages consisted of him asserting that there was something stated at the end of Sefer Melachim.
I spent a week asking him to please qoute the exact posuk he was referring to.
He could not.
Which makes sense since the posuk does’nt exist.
He was referring to a Theory popularized by some Bible Critics (which happens to have been proven wrong from basically every angle and the one who actually demolished it publicly is a non-jewish agnostic!)
Part of that Theory consists of “re-interpeting” Melachim to say what it does’nt say. So basically anyone who actually learnt the Sefer knows it’s not there but if the primary source is Finkelstien and you never actually looked at the real words of the Posuk you can’t find it.
Hance Lakewood001 is still claiming that in Melachim 23 it says something with no ability to produce the posuk that actually says it.
Rational Thinker.
You know that what you’re saying is really ludicorus, righ?
Ihave you ever been to an Arachim Seminar in Isreal or how about Gateways or Discovery in the Us?
Do you know who goes there?
I’ve been there, there are people there with PhD’s and the like.
Many of the presenters themselves are leading Scientists.
Look up Dr. Andre Goldfingers resume.
Or Dr. Akiva Tatz.
These people actually specilize in debating those with knowledge.
Asking the question about trees is kind of old isn’t it?
I did’nt really try to debate you about the accuracy of the Torah.
See the last post we had about this you seemed to be trying to articulate Theory that the Torah was written at the time of Yoshia.
The theory you articulated happens to one of four basic theories advanced by “bible Critics” the one you wrote about seemed to be the one advanced by Finkelstien.
Do you know why there are four not one?
Because the problems with each of them are so vast that it makes them seem silly. problems that make the questions of “tree rings” pale in comparison since it’s pretty easily understood that a0 there are plenty of ways explaining them (Hashem made the world grow back pretty quickly after the Mabul in an unnatural way amongst others)
The one of the “emergence” of the torah at the time of Josia is acknowledged to be problematic because of several problems
a) it is built around several pesukim in the Torah essentially saying that the Torah is littered with lies ch”v excluding those few lines.
b) It fails to account for the dissapearence of the Cannanite tribes suddenly with no explanation.
c) discounting the Mabul leaves no method of explanation how so many ancient cultures had a tradition of a Flood destroying the Earth with a single survivor that are uncannigly similar to the Mabul, even though these cultures seemingly had no contact with each other.
d) there is an actual archeolgical find of a recording of Sanncherib’s (Taylors Prism, found by Col. R. Taylor)battles that seemingly exactly verifies the accuracy of the account in Tanach which preceaded the story of Josiah indicating that it was very real. In addition
e) There is no logical explanation why the Torah records the “defeats” and failings of the the Jewish People in such great detail when the practice of all Kings at the time was to record a National History that included only triumphs.
f) The more that is dug up the more is found to verify the accuracy of the Torah in a historical sense.
Ex. 1)At one time it was thought the Torah speaking about the Hittite empire was a “myth” yet a hundred odd years ago the remnants of the Hittite empire were found and confirmed.
2) The Toah repeatedly gives detailed lineages and archeologists have acknowledged repeatedly that the Historical record shows the names used were current only in the time period they were given but were cmpletley forgotten hundreds of years later making it hard to believe that the text using those names could have been written later.
3) The theory is requires theat in a sense the Jewish people at the time of Josiah were small and not very literate in order for the hoax to be pulled off the proponents of the Theory claim David and Shlomo were in a sense “tribal Chieftans not Kings of Empires.However recent Historical finds have increasingly point to the extremley tenous possiblity of that.
4) If Dovid HaMElech and Shlomo HaMElech were made up then there is no explanation why Nach goes into such great detail about aveiros they commited again something that was comletley contrary to the practice of the period.
5) there is ample evidence of various events described in detail in the Nach such as the fall of Yericho. Yericho was acknowledged to have been found and the dig revealed a city that had been destroyed exactly as described in Yehoshua. True Kenyon claimed the dates were off however Wood has a host of reasons pointing as to why her dating methods were wrong (they were based on the absence of age specific pottery and radio-carbo testing has in fact verified Wood’s dating that the downfall occured in the proper time frame.
To sum it up there is a whole host of problems that can only be rsolved by accepting the historicty of TaNach from an archeological sense there is very little that has ever been found to contest TaNach. What has been found repeatedly actually verifies the accuracy of TaNach most of the questions are more from lack of evidence the actual evidence against. However the amount unexplored is pretty astonishing there are tens of thousand of cuneform tablets that have been found and only a fraction that have been explained.
I find it hilarious that scientifically it is a proven fact that women are different then men in every level.
The bodies of Men and Women are completley different (unless it becomes commen for men to give birth and nurse.
Emotianally Men and Women are different.
In fact Men and women speak differently.
Ask any Marketing Expert if it would be a good idea to market a product the exact same way to Men and Woman.
And yet for some reason when Chazal lay out how the religous obligations for a man and woman are different and in fact thei “tachlis hachayim” is different some people are askance.
Silly.
BTW the 23% of the worlds population that are christians and the far more 2 plus billion that are Muslims all believe in the concept of Yom Kippur since they blieve in the “Old Testament” they just believe they superseded it or got it wrong depending which one.
A widespread disbelief in Har Sinai in what is termed the “Developed World” is kind of a new “happening” starting about 250 years ago.
Sort of like the Mabul, archeologists reveal a pretty widespread story amongst anient civiliztion with a core that revolved around the world being destroyed by a flood and one man being saved and saving the animals with him (ex. Thee Epic of Gilgamesh) it’s a recent post enlightment development that there are those who wish to dispute it.